«r«cr « «r 

«.*«: «... « 
«aac 



taUR -r r 






c«r« 






< <. ««L< < * 
«c ^Cx (C« 
. < « «k>« *•< * 

s <r< «rfe ( «?<r« 

. < «. «r«< * < 
XCC «L c<€iC«C 

. ' c «« «. « c< 



« < 


4N 








t «■ 


O 




«c< 




K 




[ <c 


i 4 


«cr«c 


^M 


c 




t< 


C 






C 4 


< « 








^ c 4 




< <■ 


r< 


^T 












>. ' 


<c 


iT"^ 






<< 


r c 


L 




. «■«. 


-4R, 




1 «. « 


«hhhJ 


< 


vX 


Lj^- 




< 4 


^c< 


<*W-_ 




«< 


r_ . * 




V.<i«U 






v C 

< < 
i < 



if c <8L 

•we *■ «c«c 

«■£.> < «k: 
^:< < «c 

•bc. «c 

«? <*: 

< ••PC <v« 



4t t 






<5!t< 1 4i«^ < « e 






<LC- 



.C.^4C<"^ 

SL./c<.<< 



HIBRARY OF CONGRESS. J 



^r <c 









{ -«*rX ?2 . 

# i| 

! UNITED STATES OP AMERICA, i 



'&> < %. < 5fe. < %' Ife'%r<%.<^^<%,'«.'^ 



,4tL ^ 



4lV < 

*L L .*4^ <-< 

<c 



C. t 4 


^ri «. ^. •'V 


<c 


4 


- ^<.«fc-v^* 


_ ■ <<: 


C < * 


*^4JP Vm \ *^ 


< V 


V < « 


C4 ^S V 


CL <- i 


' 


■^' c^gfc|^^ 


K-L-*:* 


• V 




' """U 


« V 


«* • 


^^— ^r"« ^_4| 


HC ' 


" ^ 


9Va4T 4X^1 


1C_ ■ ■ 


(( ( <■ 


I. *^. , 4K 


*«■*" 



_< *v 






<- " 



*c* 






< « 











Ml 
4C4 

an 


i 

i 


«*u < 


«^ 


■1 


fe 


^■l. * 


««:. 


<f3c: 

4CA. 


,4*|'«C 


** 


<- ^»^ 




4« « 


\ 


^« 


«JC 


.. i<K 


c 4d 




• ■..<■ 



*C <Z <L 



<ml. <:< 









■ 

r 


^_ <CS1 Cc 
^:esc cc 
^<1^ cc 


■ 


CL <:<! cc 


mkucct cc 

Sgeroc: <* 
•SCCdCC 
<*zed c<, 

««r«c< * 



: << 
: <r 

_«c « 

cc cc 

~jC <r 

or « 



c«r d> 



c cz< ccc 



d det- 
er dd «C57 

d oc ec 



- «sfd 

cc<c 
d cc 



c<. ce; 
ec or 

<< C«C 



'< «d 



c 

5t C-'d 

pcd-c 



Co C 

cc 

CcC 



c o 
< d 
c d 



C C C <i 



CC C Cc 

cc cc 
cc co. 
O CCC 

C<L CO 

O cc< 



:< c.d 

dree 

v.. 

. < 

4& CC 

< 

. c 



'• o 

<-" 
c 



< «ct »-*c 

c <<lc«c 



rca- 

sfcCMcr 

■c c < 
C C< 

^^cc«c 
re cc«c: 

. >S c <"< «£ . 

<< • , . ^ 

^C'cxcc; 

«3<r«C: 

~ "d. 



•<«D:e«^BC 



■«t"Lo.«T 



c d 



<r c 


«Ci<.v#L 


C d 


•«£c«n 


c d_ . 


*LL"-1» 


«? «r 


«^« 


« <i: ■ 


■ «r<s<« 


<c <r 


«53« 


CL <1 


■•ejc«i 



•CrC<@_ 



«^x«C 



cccc 

«r o C 



C C * 



«d:- d 

<r<e: 

<L'<L 



4fi«2«C 



eteT -"^'> 
<rcc <«c -i-ej 1 

CCC <^ 



L 
«d: 

Jc S • O 

dT d 

Cc Cf« 

dec 



»J^ < c 
Cc • 
ejc<_< 



c c 
< C 

c o • 

c ■- <r ■ 
c C • 
c C 

c c « 



t c 
< C 

«C <- 

c C 



ccc<«i 



«: i-.v<i,. 



4KTvd<T 



«C cCi^Z;_ 



<cz< 



<r <<i 






<Stc c 

arc c 

«KX C 
»s<c t <r 

<serc 

«Cc d 

■C" . <: 



d cz 



4&cm: 



c C 

C C 



O Cc 






«:^ d 
<n o 



c C 
o < 



cc <: 



«tCC< 
4KS&C 



WHAT 



CONGREGATIONALISM 



HAS ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE PAST CENTURY. 



By CHRISTOPHER CUSHING. 



Reprint from the "Congregational Quarterly" for October, 1876= 



/ 




BOSTON: 

ALFRED MUDGE & SON, PRINTERS* 

34 School Street. 

1876. 

<7T 



J^ft 



V 



WHAT CONGREGATIONALISM HAS ACCOMPLISHED 
DURING THE PAST CENTURY. 1 



The relations of Congregationalism to our colonial history 
and to the shaping of our national institutions have frequently 
been made the theme of discourse, and with them we may all 
be presumed to be familiar. Our national historian tells us 
that " John Calvin, by birth a Frenchman, was to France the 
apostle of the Reformation ; but his faith had ever been feared 
as the creed of republicanism." 2 Edward Randolph, who, as 
agent of Charles II, endeavored to destroy the liberties of 
the colonists, complained of the independence exercised in 
the government of Massachusetts as " one chief occasion 
of the many mutinies and distractions in other of his majesty's 
foreign plantations " ; and seeing that this independence 
resulted chiefly from the Congregational polity of the churches, 
he undertook to secure a change in the ministry, sending 
to England for men who would labor to establish here a differ- 
ent form of church government. The first political text-books 
used by the statesmen who founded the republic were written 
by ministers as an exposition or defence of the Congregational 
polity of the churches. From our earliest history to the pres- 
ent time our New England churches have been the warmest 
supporters of our government. 

Mindful of the specific theme assigned me, I shall confine 
my observations to the present century. In fact, within these 
limitations the theme is so vast as to be embarrassing. To 
give the details is impossible ; to indulge only in general state- 
ments is unsatisfactory. On such a theme generalities would 
not be instructive, nor could they be characterized as "glitter- 
ing." A hundred years, which the memory of no living man 
can compass, — a hundred years in this fast age is more than 
a thousand years when the pyramids were built. 

1 Read before the Alumni of Andover Seminary, June 28, 1876. 

2 Bancroft, Vol. II, p. 174. 



Emerson tells us that " the poet never plants his foot except 
on a mountain peak." It is only the prominent points in the 
century which we can touch to-day : the deep, the beautiful 
valleys must be left all unexplored ; and as we pass on from 
peak to peak, I fear the whole scene will be made unattractive 
by the want in your guide of a poet's vision or a poet's fancy. 

I. The first point on which we will alight is the numerical 
strength of the Congregationalists. 

At the commencement of the century there were, so far as 
can be ascertained, about 700 Congregational churches in our 
land : now there are nearly 3,500. The number of members 
in the Congregational churches then it is impossible to state 
with any degree of accuracy : the present number is about 
350,000. This gives an average at the present time of about 
100 members to each church. 

The entire population of this country, a hundred years ago, is 
variously estimated to have been from 2,750,000 to 3,500,000 : 1 
now we have about 40,000,000. Then we bad one Congrega- 
tional church to every 4,000 or 5,000 inhabitants : now we have 
only one such church to something over 11,000 inhabitants. 
Hence, although the numerical increase of our churches is 
encouraging in itself, it is not so in its ratio to the increase 
of our population. The further fact cannot escape our atten- 
tion, that our growth is slight compared with that of other 
denominations. A century ago the Congregationalists stood 
first, and now they rank as the seventh among the different 
denominations. Then, viewed as respects the number of their 
churches, the eight leading denominations ranked as follows : 
Congregational, Baptist, Church of England, Presbyterian, 
Lutheran, German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, Roman Cath- 
olic. Now the order is, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Ro- 
man Catholic, Christian, Lutheran, Congregational, Protestant 
Episcopal. 

The German Reformed and the Dutch Reformed have fallen 
out of sight, and the Methodist and Christian denominations 
have not only entered the list but become conspicuous. 

At the commencement of the century there were, in all, 
something over 1,900 church organizations in this country : 
now there are about 75,000. Then there was one church to 

1 The first census was taken in 1790. 



every 1,700 or 1,800 souls : now there is a church to every 
500 or 600 souls. 

The complaint is sometimes made that there are too many 
churches in our land. The foregoing figures furnish the 
presumption that the fault, if there be one, does not lie at our 
door. We have not increased our churches as the population 
has increased ; in the swift competition we have yielded the 
track to others. So true is this that the only question for us 
to consider respecting our own course is, whether we have 
been faithful to our trust ? 

We have met with great losses. 

In the Unitarian defection 96 churches in Massachusetts 
were separated from our fellowship, and 30 additional parishes 
excluded evangelical preaching from their pulpits. 1 Thus there 
was a loss to our denomination of 126 houses of worship, 
which, with the parish and church funds, involved a loss to us 
of not less than $750,000. At that period this was a heavier 
blow to our denomination than these figures indicate to us, who 
are now familiar with larger numbers and an inflated currency. 
Moreover, these parishes were chiefly among the largest, 
wealthiest, and most intellectual in the State. 

Another heavy reduction of our forces resulted from the 
" Plan of Union " between us and the Presbyterians, adopted 
in 1 801, which, in the language of the late Dr. Joseph S. Clark, 
made provision that "Presbyterians and Congregationalists, 
emigrating to the new settlements of the West, be encouraged 
to foster a spirit of 'mutual forbearance and accommodation' ; 
that a Congregational church settling a Presbyterian minister, 
or vice versa, may still ' conduct their discipline ' according to 
their own ecclesiastical principles ; and that, in case the church 
be of a mixed character, partly Presbyterian and partly Con- 
gregational, they may ' choose a standing committee from the 
communicants of said church ' to issue all cases of discipline 
without consulting anybody else, but allowing the condemned 
member to appeal, if he were a Presbyterian, to the Presbytery, 
if a Congregation alist, to the church." 2 

In the practical working of this " Plan of Union," the ad- 
vantage generally accrued to the party having the stronger 

1 Dr. Clark's Congregational Churches in Massachusetts, p. 270. 

2 Ibid. pp. 241-2. 



form of government. A Presbyterian minister presbyterian- 
ized his flock. The churches formed on the " Plan of Union " 
were put "under care of Presbytery/' and the Presbytery cared 
for them ! Thus hundreds of churches, composed chiefly of 
Congregational elements, have been turned away from our 
communion. 

If we would estimate what Congregationalism has accom- 
plished the last hundred years, we must include more than 
appears inside our denominational lines. The material which 
we have furnished the Presbyterians is not to be viewed simply 
as a loss to us. By means of that material we have moulded, 
in no small measure, the Presbyterian Church ; we have sup- 
plied them not only with church-members but also with minis- 
ters. When Dr. Lyman Beecher found that he was to be tried 
for heresy, he encouraged Congregational ministers to connect 
themselves with Presbytery, that by the introduction of New 
England elements his own position and that of men who were 
in sympathy with him might be strengthened. 

The first regularly ordained Presbyterian minister in North 
America ] was taken from Congregational stock. 

A large proportion of the ministers of the Presbyterian 
Church at the present time are of New England birth. Not 
less than two hundred and fifty of them have been educated 
in a single New England college. Congregationalism has 
furnished for the theological seminaries of the Presbyterian 
Church more than a score of professors. Of the seven pro- 
fessors now in the Union Theological Seminar}', of New York, 
five, and among them the most prominent, were formerly pas- 
tors of Congregational churches. Of the two hundred and fifty- 
five Presbyterian ministers of whom Dr. Sprague gives a sketch 
in his annals, fifty-three were born in New England. Many 
of the leading men of the Assembly, such as Sprague and 
Spring, among the honored dead ; Humphrey, the moderator 
of the recent reunited body ; Hatfield, Stearns, and March, 
and others too numerous to mention, are men of Congrega- 
tional antecedents. We have, to a great extent, congrega- 
tionalized the denomination. Practically, the Presbyterian 
churches now settle and dismiss their own ministers without 
being subject, as of old, to the authority of the session. The 

1 Rev. Jedediah Andrews, Philadelphia, 1 698-1 747. Born in Hingham, Mass. 



denomination may boast, if they will, of their peculiarities ; 
but should their Scotch ancestry return to earth and enter 
their assembly, the old heroes would hardly recognize them as 
kith or kin. We can scarcely imagine their surprise when 
they should learn that their old standards are now received 
only "for substance." What would be their dismay when 
attending a church meeting to see women voting ! Congrega- 
tionalists generally do not favor women's voting, even in eccle- 
siastical affairs, or addressing promiscuous assemblies. It is 
claimed by some that in certain lines the Presbyterians are 
more radical and revolutionary than the Congregationalists. 
We do not care to be responsible for all their faults, but we do 
think we can claim no small measure of credit for their true 
progress and enlightenment. 

We have furnished elements for other denominations as well. 
Mr. Bancroft, in his history, first published in 1837, testified that 
at that recent date the Puritans of New England were " the 
parents of one third of the whole white population of the United 
States." 1 Who believes that there would have been a lay 
delegation at the present time in the Methodist Episcopal Con- 
ference had it not been for Congregational blood in that church, 
and the influence of Congregational principles ? 

Even an Episcopal rector on the Pacific coast, referring to 
the spirit of liberty pervading his church, recently declared, 
" My church is not Episcopalian : it is Congregational; for even 
the women will do as they please in spite of me." 

We have not kept all our flock within our own fold, but those 
who have gone out from us still bear our mark. It is no slight 
honor to have moulded the institutions of our land and the 
character of the people. Why we have not retained our hold as 
a denomination upon a larger portion of our population, — why 
we have not grown as rapidly as other denominations, is an 
interesting subject of investigation. The explanation is not 
found, as it seems to me, in the suggestion of a scholarly writer, 
of broad-church sympathies, who ascribes it to a " wide-spread 
reaction against the whole dogmatic apprehension of Chris- 
tianity." 2 The Baptists have retained their Calvinism, and 

1 Vol. I, p. 468. 

2 Prof. J. L. Diman, North American Review, January, 1876, p. 24. 



8 

yet, as a denomination, have made rapid strides. The Presby- 
terians boast of their "precise dogmatic system," and yet have 
vastly increased their numbers and their power. If we have 
made comparatively slow progress the explanation is to be found 
rather in such considerations as the following : — 

(i.) Because, with a high-church assumption, we have theo- 
retically taken the ground that our churches are churches of 
Christ, and do not belong to a denomination. 

(2.) Because we have practically failed to appreciate and 
commend our church polity. 

(3.) Because, in our extreme catholicity and excessive gen- 
erosity, we have spent our strength in building up other denom- 
inations. 

The work which we have done outside of our own lines is 
a noble one ; yet we cannot but feel that a still nobler work 
would have been wrought had we imitated the priests of ancient 
Israel, and built over against our own house. 

We would not speak disparagingly of what has been accom- 
plished within our own lines. Of the 700 churches in our 
fellowship a century ago, 516 still remain on our list. To a 
just apprehension of our work we must include in our view 
the 325 churches and 76,000 church members which we have 
gathered on the foreign field, while even at home we have 
multiplied our churches five-fold. 

II. The second point on which we will rest our foot is the 
benevolent operations of the Congregationalists . 

In the latter part of the eighteenth century a few local soci- 
eties were formed with particular reference to the Christianizing 
of the Indians. A "society for propagating the gospel in North 
America " originated on the other side of the water, and had 
commissioners in this country. As early as June, 1762, these 
commissioners sent Rev. Eli Forbes, of Brookfield, and Rev. Mr. 
Rice, afterward of Westminster, with Mr. Elisha Gunn, of Mon- 
tague, as interpreter, to the Indians of the Susquehanna Valley, 
where, among the Tuscaroras, they " opened two schools, one for 
adults and another for children, gathered a church, and admin- 
istered special ordinances to them." l Mr. Forbes, on his return 

1 Sermon of Rev. Joseph I. Foot, Note w, p. 91, preached Nov. 27, 1S2S; re- 
print, 1843. 



brought four Indian youths with him, whom he educated and 
sent back to instruct their nation. 1 " The Congregational Mis- 
sionary Society in the counties of Berkshire, Mass., and Colum- 
bia, N. Y.," was founded in 1798 ; the Connecticut Missionary 
Society was organized the same year, and the Massachusetts 
Missionary Society in 1799. These societies had for their 
object the diffusion of " the knowledge of the gospel among 
the heathen, as well as other people in the remote parts of 
our country, where Christ is seldom or never preached." 

The Hampshire Missionary Society was organized in 1802, and 
" The Massachusetts Society for promoting Christian Knowl- 
edge" in 1803. The latter was for "the benevolent purpose 
of promoting evangelical truth and piety : in the first place, by 
a charitable distribution of religious books among poor and 
pious Christians, and also among the inhabitants of new towns 
and plantations ; and secondly, by supporting charity schools 
and pious missionaries in places where the means of religious 
instruction are sparingly enjoyed." 

As early as January, 1803, the Brookfield Association con- 
templated the formation of a missionary society in Worcester 
County. In 1806 it was voted to attempt such an organization, 
and this action resulted in the formation of a Society at Lan- 
caster, in the fall of 1807, called "The Missionary Society in 
the counties of Worcester and Middlesex." The control of 
this Society soon fell into the hands of unevangelical men, and 
this led the association which initiated it to withdraw from it 
their sympathy and support. 

The Connecticut Bible Society was formed in May, and the 
Massachusetts Bible Society in July in the year 1809 ; the 
American Board was formed in 18 10 ; and while all these move- 
ments in behalf of the heathen and the destitute in distant por- 
tions of our land were inaugurated and carried forward for a 
period of more than fifty years, it was not until 1818 that the 
" Domestic Missionary Society of Massachusetts Proper " was 
formed " to assist needy churches, parishes, and waste places " 
in the State, a work now familiarly known as Home Missions. 

The decade from 18 10 to 1820 was remarkable for the origin 
of great benevolent movements. The Howard Benevolent 

1 Peter Whitney's History of the County of Worcester, 1793, p. 75. 



IO 

Society of Boston was formed in 1812 ; the American Tract 
Society, Boston, in 1814; the American Education Society 
and the Massachusetts Peace Society, in 181 5 ; the American 
Bible Society, the Boston Female Jews Society, and the Bos- 
ton Society for the Religious and Moral Instruction of the 
Poor, now known as the Boston City Missionary Society, in 
1816; the American Colonization Society in 1817. The 
American Home Missionary Society was formed in 1826, and 
the two Missionary Societies in Massachusetts, viz. " The Mas- 
sachusetts Missionary Society," formed in 1799, an d "The 
Domestic Missionary Society of Massachusetts Proper," 
formed in 1818, were combined in 1827 as "The Massa- 
chusetts Missionary Society," which was changed to the Mas- 
sachusetts Home Missionary Society in 1844. 

The American Tract Society, New York, was organized in 
1825, and the American Peace Society and the American Sea- 
men's Friend Society in 1828. 

From the Foreign Evangelical Association of 1837, changec 
to the Foreign Evangelical Society in 1839, ^ ne American Pro- 
testant Society of 1843 and the Christian Alliance formed in 
1843, a new organization, under the name of the American 
and Foreign Christian Union, was formed in 1849. 

The Society for the promotion of Collegiate and Theologi- 
cal Education at the West was formed in 1843 ; the American 
Congregational Union in 1853, and the Congregational Library 
Association, now known as The American Congregational 
Association, the same year. 

It would be impossible to name in such an address as 
this all the minor organizations for benevolent work, or to 
give a detailed account of such societies as have been named. 
I shall restrict myself to a few general statements respecting 
what are now known as the six co-operative societies engaged 
in our denominational work. 

(1.) The American Board, the oldest of the six, formed in 
1 8 10, was originated by Congregationalists, although the Pres- 
byterian and the Dutch Reformed churches soon shared in 
its management. Upon the division of the Presbyterian 
Church in 1837, the old-school branch formed a separate 
organization for missionary work ; and the Dutch Reformed 






1 1 



Churches withdrew from the American Board in 1857. When 
the two branches of the Presbyterian Church reunited in 
1870, the new-school churches withdrew, leaving the Ameri- 
can Board to the Congregationalists. The receipts of the 
Board have been $15,500,000. It has established 48 mis- 
sions, sustained 1,600 missionaries, gathered 325 churches, 
received 76,000 church members, given instruction to 400,000 
pupils, and printed 1,420,000,000 pages for the promotion of its 
gigantic work in seeking the conversion of the heathen world. 

(2.) The American Education Society, organized in 181 5, 
and the Society for the Promotion of Collegiate and Theological 
Education at the West, organized in 1843, were united as the 
American College and Education Society in 1874. This So- 
I ciety, embracing both branches, has received about $3,000,000, 
aided in preparing for the gospel ministry 6,300 young men, 
and helped to endow 22 colleges or theological seminaries, — 
a record of which any Society may well be proud. 

(3.) The American Home Missionary Society was organ- 
ized in 1826. The Presbyterians, the Associate Reformed, 
and the Dutch Reformed were associated with us in the for- 
mation and early management of this Society. The Associate 
Reformed and Dutch Reformed soon retired without formal 
action. The Presbyterians continued their co-operation until 
a portion of their churches commenced taking up contributions 
for planting Presbyterian churches " in advance of all others," 
thus diminishing their contributions to our common treasury,, 
while still using our common treasury for the support of their 
poor churches. The exposure of this practice brought the 
subject of co-operation definitely to the consideration of the 
Presbyterians, and in 1861 they withdrew from the organiza- 
tion. The entire receipts of this Society have been over 
$7,500,000 ($7,621,071). Under its direction 31,486 years of 
ministerial service have been performed ; the gospel has been 
preached in 43 States and Territories ; its missionaries have 
organized 1,889 churches; an< ^ there have been added to the 
churches which have received its aid 265,297 souls. 

(4.) The Congregational Publishing Society came into ex- 
istence through a tortuous course. The Congregationalists, 
the Baptists, the Episcopalians, and the Methodists co-oper- 



12 

ated in the organization of the Massachusetts Sabbath School 
Union, May 24, 1825, auxiliary to the American Sunday 
School Union organized in Philadelphia the previous year. 
The Episcopalians and the Methodists soon withdrew from 
the Massachusetts Society, but the Baptists and the Con- 
gregationalists continued to work together until 1832. On 
the 30th of May of that year they made an amicable separation, 
and the Society was dissolved. The next day the Congrega- 
tionalists formed the Massachusetts Sabbath School Society, 
which, for a time at least, co-operated with the American Sun- 
day School Union. The American Doctrinal Tract Society 
was organized in 1829. Its name was changed in 1850 to 
The Doctrinal Tract and Book Society, and further changed 
in 1854 to The Congregational Board of Publication. This 
Society united with the Massachusetts Sabbath School Society 
in 1868, under the name of the Congregational Sabbath School 
and Publishing Society, and the present name, The Congrega- 
tional Publishing Society, was assumed in 1870. The receipts 
of this Society for benevolent purposes, beginning with the 
Massachusetts Sabbath School Society in 1832, and not in- 
cluding what was given to the Doctrinal Tract Society under 
its various phases, previous to the union in 1868, have amounted 
to about $150,000. 

(5.) The American Missionary Association was formed 
Sept. 3, 1846. It soon combined in itself four elements or 
pre-existing organizations. (1.) The Amistad Committee, 
which had in charge the interests of the Amistad captives. 
(2.) The Union Missionary Society, organized in Hartford, 
Conn., and having an anti-slavery aim. (3.) A committee for 
West India Missions, formed in 1844, to sustain some mission- 
aries from Oberlin, who had attempted a self-supporting mis- 
sion ; and (4.) The Western Evangelical Missionary Society, 
formed in 1843 by an association in Ohio to prosecute mis- 
sionary operations among the Indians of the West. The asso- 
ciation has devoted itself to both the foreign and the home 
field. It has had 9 missions abroad. It had at one time 29 
stations and 70 foreign missionaries, 18 churches, with 1,500 
members. It had also at one time 1 12 home missionaries, and 
145 churches, with 5,223 members. It now devotes itself 



13 

chiefly to the three despised races in this land, — the Negroes, 
the Indians, and the Chinese. It has 56 churches at the 
South, with 3,601 members. It gives great prominence to the 
educational work among the freedmen. It has 7 chartered 
institutions of learning, and numerous schools. Its entire 
receipts have exceeded four millions of dollars ($4,148,832.53). 

(6.) The American Congregational Union, the last of the 
six, was organized in 1853. It commenced at once gathering 
and publishing the statistics of the denomination, and now 
issues them annually in a form and with a completeness which 
invite comparison with those of any other denomination. The 
Union was the result of the Albany convention of 1852, and 
including the fund raised by that convention for church build- 
ing and the forefathers' fund gathered in 1856, the receipts of 
the Union have been $791,185.21 ; 931 churches have been 
aided in the erection of houses of worship ; 959 houses have 
been built or restored. The amount paid to the churches 
is $633,091.70 •; the amount paid for parsonages, $778.35 ; and 
the amount paid for pastors' libraries, $3,201.83. 

The entire receipts of these six denominational societies 
have been over $31,000,000. It may be suggested that a por- 
tion of this money has been contributed by members of other 
denominations, and hence that these entire receipts cannot be 
reckoned as the work of Congregationalists. This is true ; 
but on the other hand it is to be considered that what has 
been contributed outside of our denominational lines has come 
principally from Presbyterians, a large part of whom were of 
Congregational origin. Since we have given to Presbyterian- 
ism the men, it is a slight thing for us to be allowed the credit 
of what they have contributed through channels which are 
now in our hands On the other hand we have contributed 
large sums to aid the Presbyterians ; we gave thousands of 
dollars to furnish a library for Lane Seminary, and contributed 
$10,000 at one time to build houses of worship for the Presby- 
terians in Missouri. 

Again, I have made no note of the large sums which we 
have contributed to organizations which continue to be of a 
union character, such as the Bible Society, the Tract Society, 
the Seaman's Friend Society, and others too numerous to 



name. So thoroughly have we entered into benevolent work 
in all its ramifications, that it is impossible to separate what 
we have done from what has been done by others, and estab- 
lish a distinctive claim to it. 

In a review of the benevolent work of the century in its 
relations to Congregationalism, we find some very remarkable 
things : — 

First. The most of the great religious and benevolent move- 
ments of the age originated with us. 

Second. After we commenced the organization of benevo- 
lent societies, for more than fifty years we never organized one 
under a Congregational name, or on a distinctively denomina- 
tional basis. The American Congregational Union, organized 
in 1853, was the first denominational Society which we ever 
formed. 

Third. We never withdrew from a union Society, except in 
the case of the American and Foreign Christian Union, and 
then only on the ground of its mal-administration. 

Fourth. Of the six co-operative Congregational Societies 
which we now sustain, five were originally union societies, and 
were made denominational only by the withdrawal of other 
denominations from them. Four of them still retain an unde- 
nominational name. We are not schismatics. If we work by 
ourselves, it is because others have left us to work alone. 

Fifth. We have a smaller number of denominational ob- 
jects for which we make annual appeals to the churches than 
any other of the great evangelical denominations of Christians. 
While we have six, the Baptists have seven, the Methodists 
eight, the Presbyterians eight, and the Episcopalians nine. 

Sixth. We are the only denomination which embraces 
union societies on the schedule on which we make our annual 
returns of benevolent contributions. The Methodists report 
what they contribute to the Bible Society. Other denomina- 
tions have a column for miscellaneous charities ; but many of 
our State bodies still give prominence, or at least specific 
mention of contributions to union societies. 

Other denominations have learned that they can work most 
efficiently within denominational lines. Hence, to do so is not 
necessarily schismatic, but only an adroit adaptation of means 



*5 

to ends. We commend their efficiency, should we not emu- 
late their skill ? 

But, waiving the question of modes and methods, we have, 
during the past century, accomplished a work in the planting 
of Christian institutions, in the extension of Christian influ- 
ences, which we may review with satisfaction, and with grati- 
tude to Him who is the Giver of faith and the Author, in us, of 
every benevolent purpose, and through whose gracious aid our 
efforts are crowned with success. 

III. The third point of observation is, the agency of Con- 
gregationalists in moral reforms. 

Of the various branches of reform I will notice but two, viz. 
temperance and anti-slavery. The evils of intemperance have 
not escaped notice from the days of Lot down to modern 
times. The first efforts at reform in this century were not 
very radical. A Society was organized at Moreau, New York, 
in 1808, the members of which pledged themselves not to 
drink " rum, gin, whiskey, wine, or any distilled spirits, or com- 
positions of the same," except in cases of sickness, and " at 
public dinners." This was as accommodating as the pledge of 
a Society in Yale College, in 1840, which excluded the use of 
all drinks which had more than six per cent of alcohol in them, 
and was designed to allow the members to indulge in the fes- 
tivities of the political campaign, in which " coon-skins and hard 
cider" bore so conspicuous a part. The Rev. Thomas Snell, 
of North Brookfield, Mass., preached a foreign missionary 
sermon, in 18 12, in which he suggested that his people should 
drink less liquor, and from what they thus saved make a con- 
tribution to the missionary cause, and he accompanied the 
suggestion with the agreement to save from his own liquor 
bill the next year the sum of three dollars. He afterwards be- 
came a stanch temperance man. The Massachusetts Society 
for the suppression of intemperance was organized in Boston 
in 181 3. It was a temperance, but not a total abstinence 
society. Dr. Lyman Beecher preached his famous six ser- 
mons on temperance in the winter of 1825-26. Rev. Dr. 
Hewitt, of Bridgeport, Conn., early appeared as a temperance 
advocate. Rev. Dr. Justin Edwards, of this seminary, will be 
remembered for his prominence in the temperance cause. In 



i6 

1825 he united with Rev. Dr. Woods, and fourteen others, in 
forming in Boston "The American Society for the Promotion 
of Temperance." In the following year " The American 
Temperance Union " was organized in the same city, — where 
else could a temperance movement be expected to originate ? 
I cannot dwell longer on this theme, having said enough 
already to indicate the relation of the Congregationalists to 
the inauguration of this great moral enterprise. 

On the subject of slavery a fuller treatment seems necessary. 
It was in 1776, just a hundred years ago, that Rev. Samuel 
Hopkins published his Dialog?ie sliowing it to be tJie Duty and 
Interest of the American States to Emancipate all their African 
Slaves. Societies were organized in several of the States from 
1775 to the close of the eighteenth century, having for their 
object the gradual abolition of slavery, which exerted a strong 
influence in securing the extinction of slavery in several of 
the Northern States. The friends of liberty made a stout 
resistance to the admission of Missouri, as a slave State, in 
1819 and 1820. In the article on "Slavery" in the American 
Cyclopcedia, now in course of publication, it is stated that " the 
Missouri conflict was followed by a period of profound repose 
in regard to the whole subject. The publication, by Benjamin 
Lundy, a Quaker, of a small journal at Baltimore, entitled 
Genius of Universal Emancipation, was almost the only visible 
sign of opposition to slavery until William Lloyd Garrison 
established The Liberator, in Boston, Jan. 1, 1831." This 
statement accords with what is now a somewhat general im- 
pression, but it is not altogether truthful. When the Liberator 
was started, the Colonization Society had been in existence four- 
teen years, and an anti-slavery sentiment had been developed 
quite extensively in the direction of its plans and purposes. 
In the first volume of the Liberator (p. 121) we find the follow- 
ing declaration : "In 1826 the synod of Ohio held animated 
discussion on a question which had been referred to the Gen- 
eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, viz. 'Is the holding 
of slaves man-stealing?' — in the affirmative of which a large 
majority concurred." Here, on the authority of Mr. Garrison's 
own organ, a large majority of a quite numerous body of cler- 
gymen took the most thorough anti-slavery ground more than 
iour years before his Liberator had being. 



17 

I have no disposition to deduct one iota from the credit due 
Mr. Garrison as an anti-slavery agitator. He was among the 
first to plant himself publicly on the theory of immediate 
emancipation, and at once he became conspicuous. As a 
debater he had remarkable powers, and his editorials were 
arousing ; in the battle-cry of freedom, distinct and promi- 
nent were his bugle-blasts. 

The Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society was formed in 
Boston, Jan. I, 1832, and the American Anti- Slavery Society 
was formed in Philadelphia, Dec. 4, 1833. In less than five 
years the American Anti-Slavery Society had 1,350 auxiliary 
societies, embracing State societies in every free State in the 
Union except Indiana and New Jersey, and its total receipts 
reached $125,000. 

Notwithstanding this rapid progress Mr. Garrison became 
impatient, and struck for reforms more radical in their charac- 
ter. As early as July 4, 1837, m an address delivered at Prov- 
idence, he declared that he " stood forth in the spirit of 
prophecy to proclaim in the ears of the people that our doom 
as a nation is sealed." He added, " If history be not wholly 
fabulous, if revelation be not a forgery, if God be not faithless 
in the execution of His threatenings, the doom is certain and 
the interpretation thereof sure. The overthrow of the Amer- 
ican confederacy is in the womb of events." He continued, 
" The corruptions of the Churchy so called, are obviously more 
deep and incurable than those of the State ; and therefore the 
Church, in spite of every precaution and safeguard, is first to be 
dashed in pieces." 1 

Soon it became evident that Mr. Garrison and a few of his 
compeers were bent on new reforms, viz. " Woman's Rights," 
" No Government," " Anti-Church," " Anti-Ministry," and 
" Anti-Sabbath." As these " other reforms, standing alone 
or on their own merits, could not get a hearing, or make any 
general lodgment in the public mind," 2 Mr. Garrison and his 
sympathizers devised the plan of " sifting them in " upon the 
anti-slavery reform. 

Rev. Amos A. Phelps, having a keener intellect, a more 

1 The true History of the late Division in the Anti-Slavery Societies, 1841, p. 8. 

2 Ibid. p. 15. 



i8 

invincible power in logic than any other man who ever 
devoted himself to the cause of the slave, to whom, in my 
view, the anti-slavery cause in our land is under greater obli- 
gations than to any man living, or almost any other man 
among the honored dead, was the most prominent in discov- 
ering and exposing this plot. In this Mr. Phelps was sus- 
tained by others. Mr. Elizur Wright, Jr., now so well known 
in financial circles, wrote to Rev. Mr. Phelps, Oct. 26, 1837, 
" I have just received a letter from Garrison which confirms 
my fears that he has finished his course for the slave. At any 
rate, his plan of rescuing the slave by the destruction of human 
laws is fatally conflictive with ours. Only one of them can 
lead to any good result." 1 

The anti-slavery movement at the start favored the use of 
the elective franchise in behalf of the slave; but in 1838 the 
Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, under the lead of Mr. 
Garrison, " was made to abandon its own original doctrines on 
the subject of political action, and become subservient to the 
promotion of the dogmas of non-governmentism." 2 

This led to a division in the anti-slavery ranks. The Mas- 
sachusetts Abolition Society, under the lead of Mr. Phelps and 
his associates, was formed in 1839, and became auxiliary, not 
to the old American, but to the new American and Foreign 
Anti-Slavery Society. 

From this time on, the Garrison party diminished in num- 
bers and in influence ; and the anti-slavery cause was carried 
forward, not under Mr. Garrison's lead, — not prominently 
through his aid, — for in large measure he was a hinderance 
rather than a help. He was wonderful for his power of vitu- 
peration, and his philippics continued to serve medicinally as 
an irritant ; but he prejudiced the minds of religious men 
against the anti-slavery cause, while the political movement, 
which ultimately proved the successful one, ever after 1838 met 
with his opposition. 

It is a remarkable fact that Mr. Garrison has produced no 
standard work on this subject. The American Cyclopaedia, 
enumerating thirty-seven important volumes on slavery, in- 
cludes in the catalogue nothing from his pen. 

1 The true History of the late Division in the Anti-Slavery Societies, p. 12. 

2 Ibid. p. 26. 



19 

If any one still claims that the Garrisonians were among 
the most efficient anti-slavery workers, so far as Congrega- 
tionalism is concerned, be it remembered that the leading 
Garrisonians, Henry C. Wright, Parker Pillsbury, and Stephen 
S. Foster, imbibed their anti-slavery sentiments, bat not their 
fanaticism, from Congregational sources, for they were origi- 
nally Congregational ministers, or candidates for that office. 

The only two men who were reckoned as martyrs in the 
anti-slavery cause, Lovejoy and Torrey, were Congregational 
ministers. 

The representation is sometimes made that ministers were 
particularly backward in the anti-slavery reform. 

Mr. Oliver Johnson, in 1837, declared "The anti-slavery 
car has rolled forward thus far, not only without the aid, but 
against the combined influence of the ministers and churches 
of the country." 1 Now, what are the facts in the case ? I 
freely acknowledge that the church did not do its whole duty. 
In our own denomination, the prominent ministers, particularly, 
seemed to be unduly subject to commercial influences. Still, 
the true picture, although it has dark shades, is luminous and 
attractive. 

Mr. Phelps made an investigation on this subject, and found 
that while, taking the country together, there was, on an aver- 
age, one minister to five hundred people, — in the early anti- 
slavery conventions of those who signed the call for the con- 
ventions more than one third were ministers, and of the delegates 
present, more than one fifth were ministers. Thus, in the 
unpopular days of this reform, the ministers, while one to five 
hundred in the ratio of population, were among prominent 
anti-slavery men one to five. In 1837 there were, in Massa- 
chusetts, 19,206 members of anti-slavery societies, or one in 
thirty-six of the people. There were, at that time, seven hun- 
dred and ninety-two ministers in the State, of all denomina- 
tions, and nearly one half of them were members of anti-slavery 
societies. Of the fifty-six agents employed by the American 
Anti-Slavery Society prior to 1837, forty-three were ministers. 
As a class, the ministers were not behind the people, but they 
were leaders in this cause. 

1 Liberator, Oct. 13, 1837. 



20 

Calvin Colton, who, if I mistake not, sometimes used the 
signature of " Junius," in a political tract, testified, " Nearly- 
all the political abolitionists, and with scarcely an exception 
all the abolition preachers, lecturers, and missionaries are reli- 
gious men. Religion, everywhere, is the high and holy sanc- 
tion relied upon to enforce the doctrine." 

The representation is sometimes made that the evangelical 
ministers were more backward in this reform, in its early days, 
than the so-called unevangelical ; but this too is erroneous. 

In 1837, of the Orthodox Congregational ministry in Mas- 
sachusetts more than one third were members of anti-slavery 
societies, while of the Unitarian ministers there was only one 
in eight. The Anti-Slavery Society in Amherst College in 1834 
had 76 members, of whom 70 were professors of religion ; 30 
of them had consecrated themselves to the foreign missionary 
work, and 20 to home missionary service at the West. 

In 1834 the trustees of Lane Seminary prohibited the open 
discussion of slavery by the students, and four-fifths of the 
students withdrew from the institution. A number of them 
became at once anti-slavery lecturers. Theodore D. Weld, 
Henry B. Stanton, and Ichabod Codding went from State to 
State, defending the rights of the slave. While Mr. Weld was 
holding a series of meetings in Steubenville, Ohio, he noticed 
a young lawyer in his audience, evening after evening, taking 
notes. At the close of his last lecture the young man came for- 
ward and introduced himself, remarking, " I came here resolved 
to answer you, and have taken notes of every lecture, but you 
have converted me." That young lawyer was Edwin M. Stan- 
ton, and thus God raised up for Mr. Lincoln's administration a 
fit Secretary of War. The breaking up of the classes in Lane 
Seminary led to the organization of a theological department 
at Oberlin, and in this great Christian reform Oberlin took an 
early and prominent part. Mr. Finney refused to become pres- 
ident of the college unless colored students were allowed to 
enjoy its privileges. The Hon. Salmon P. Chase was wont to 
ascribe his elevation to the United States Senate to the influ- 
ence of Oberlin. 

In the recent national conflict, which was, in fact, a conflict 
between liberty and slavery, while the Episcopal Church, with 



21 

honorable exceptions, gave but feeble support to the govern- 
ment, as was true in the Revolutionary struggle, the Congre- 
gational ministry and churches were almost without exception 
patriotic. The late Gov. Washburn, of Vermont, whose official 
duty during the war was to secure recruits for the army and 
organize the military forces of the State, testified, a little before 
his death, that he found the churches all over the State rallying- 
points of patriotism, and the ministers his most efficient helpers. 

Just after the close of the war a minister in Michigan testi- 
fied that there was not a pastor, acting pastor, or supply of any 
Congregational church in the State who was not during the 
war a zealous patriot. One of the Iowa band, as the first mis- 
sionaries to that State were called, after having been in Iowa 
twenty-five years, and having become extensively acquainted 
with the people, declared that he did not know of a member of 
a Congregational church in the State who was not during the 
war a supporter of the administration. In ten great States of 
the interior one fourth of all the adult male members of the 
Congregational churches enlisted as soldiers in the army. 1 

In this centennial year, while we bless God that we have lived 
to see our land an asylum for the oppressed and the home of 
the free, we may rejoice that our churches and our ministry 
have been among the most conspicuous in hastening the tri- 
umph of the right, in ushering in the Jubilee. 

IV. One point remains to be touched, — the Theological 
Crises through zvhich the Congregationalists have passed. 

There is no other denomination in our land which has given 
such prominence to intellectual training and to doctrinal truth. 
In the early history of Connecticut a law was passed providing 
that no man should be entitled to recognition as a clergyman 
" who was not a graduate of Yale or Harvard, or of some for- 
eign university." 

The Congregationalists founded a college fifty-five years 
before any other denomination in our land, and they were the 
first to establish a theological seminary. Of the Apostle Paul 
it is said that he " spake boldly . . . disputing and per- 
suading the things concerning the kingdom of God " : we have 
shown ourselves his worthy successors by doing our full share 

1 The Home Missionary, Vol. 39, p. 4. 



22 

in " disputing and persuading." The doctrinal crises through 
which we have passed have been attended with incidental evils, 
but on the whole they have resulted in great good ; they have 
given definiteness and distinctness to our views. 

(i.) Our controversy with the Unitarians served to fix the 
limitations of our thought as to the Divine nature. We are 
now careful to state that we do not use the word " Person " in 
its relation to the Trinity in its ordinary sense, but rather in a 
technical sense, — not as synonymous with being, but rather 
to indicate a distinction which the Scriptures reveal but which 
they do not analytically explain. We avoid the use of lan- 
guage which would suggest a belief in three Gods, or expose 
us to the charge of believing that one is three and three are 
one. While rejecting the Sabellian idea of a modal Trinity, 
a Trinity of mere manifestation, inadequate to explain the 
representations of Scripture, we accept the triune nature of the 
Godhead as a revealed fact, without attempting to decide 
whether the Trinity pertains to the substance or only to the 
attributes of the infinite Being whom we worship as the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Careful lest we seem to 
know too much, we accept the scriptural teachings as a matter 
of faith. 

There has been one prolonged controversy, commencing 
with Edwards in the middle of the last century, and ending a 
century later with the accepted distinction between "The 
Theology of the Intellect and the Theology of the Feelings." 
At its varied phases we can give a glance only. 

(2.) Edwards, in his Treatise 011 the Will, established us in 
the faith that there is a Divine government which plans and 
controls all events, securing in the realm of moral beings the 
certai?ity of results without natural necessity, — a certainty 
not inconsistent with freedom. He, as a theologian, discrimi- 
nated between general justice and retributive justice, showing 
how the former may be sustained while the latter is waived. 

(3.) Samuel Hopkins, born about a score of years later, de- 
veloped the idea of responsibility as pertaining to character, 
rather than to our nature in the strict sense of the word. 
Then followed two men of opposite extremes, — Burton and 
Emmons, — each having his disciples. 



23 

(4.) Asa Burton, as leader in the advocacy of the " Taste 

Scheme," made his theology accord with the poetry of 

Watts : — 

" So, on a tree divinely fair, 
Grew the forbidden food ; 
Our mother took the poison there, 
And tainted all her blood." 

(5.) Nathaniel Emmons, denying not only the moral charac- 
ter of passive states, but also the permanency of any individual 
choice, sought to limit our responsibility to a succession of 
exercises. 

(6.) Dr. Taylor and Dr. Tyler assumed antagonistic po- 
sitions, and the old-school and new-school war was waged 
with vigor. 

The result of these contests is that a man is now recognized 
as Orthodox, — 

(1.) Whether he believes that God so foreordains all events 
that they cannot be otherwise, or simply that He so foreordains 
them that they will not be otherwise. 

(2.) Whether he believes that all virtue can be resolved into 
benevolence, or that there are virtues which cannot be resolved 
into this generic love of sentient being. 

(3.) Whether he believes that we sinned in Adam's sin, or 
only in consequence of it. 

(4.) Whether he believes that we have by nature a sinful 
tendency, or simply that we have a tendency to sin. 

(5.) Whether he believes that we are responsible for affec- 
tions lying back of the will, or simply for that complex moral 
act known as a choice. 

(6.) Whether he believes in a moral state which determines 
our choices, or in a predominant choice which determines our 
moral state, or even in a succession of choices, the essential 
uniformity of which gives fixedness to our moral character. 

(7.) Whether he believes that our moral character is con- 
genital, or that it begins at some indefinite period as soon as 
a moral choice is possible. 

(8.) Whether he believes that regeneration, as wrought by 
the Holy Spirit, is a change in the moral nature or only in 
the moral character ; or, in supposable cases of infants, a change 



24 

in the balance of susceptibilities, securing the development of 
a right moral character. 

(9.) Whether he believes that in the atonement, Christ 
suffered the literal penalty of the violated law, or merely that 
by His sufferings and death He so honored the law, as to open 
the way for the forgiveness of sin. 

(10.) Whether he believes that Christ's righteousness is 
literally imputed to the redeemed, or that on the ground of His 
atonement they are treated as righteous. 

(n.) Whether he believes that without the Holy Spirit 
man cannot come to Christ, or that he can but will not. 

(12.) Whether he believes that sin is the necessary means 
of the greatest good, or merely that it is incidental to that 
moral system which is the necessary means of the greatest 
good. 

These are philosophical differences in respect to which, as 
the result of our controversies, we have gained the largest 
liberty. With these philosophical differences, the oneness of 
our faith remains. We believe in a Divine Governor, revealed 
as a Triune Being ; that He controls all events, and that He 
sustains His law by infinite sanctions. 

We believe that man, while possessed of amiable natural 
virtues, is yet by nature entirely sinful, and as such is exposed 
to the penalty of the Divine law. 

We believe that through the vicarious sufferings and death 
of Christ, man has the offer of pardon, and that the Holy 
Spirit is sent into the world to renew and sanctify the soul ; 
that, if man resists the Spirit and rejects the Saviour, he seals 
his own doom, and if he yields and believes, he makes his 
eternal salvation sure. 

Call these doctrines Calvinistic, Edwardean, Scriptural, or 
what you please, they are the doctrines of our denomination, 
and they are in some respects distinctive. 

The representation has been repeatedly made that the Na- 
tional Council at Oberlin modified our doctrinal position as a 
denomination, and put us on a simply evangelical basis. 

The absurdity of this representation is seen in the fact that 
the National Council has no authority whatsoever respecting 
the doctrinal position of our churches. The doctrinal basis of 



25 

the denomination is decided by the creeds of our local 
churches. The churches never authorized their delegates to 
the Council to modify in any way their doctrinal position, or 
even to define it. The Council was organized for Christian 
work, and not for the control of our dogmatic faith. We are 
told that the Council received into its membership a Kentucky 
church which was avowedly formed on an undenominational 
basis. This is true, but what does it prove ? Simply that the 
Council was willing to have such a church unite with it in 
Christian work. It was an exceptional case. It is ridiculous 
to suppose that, by the simple admission of a representation of 
that church, the Council reduced the doctrinal standard of all 
our churches to the level of that church. The apostle exhorts, 
" Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye " ; but we are not 
to suppose that he intended in this, that the church should 
become weak in the faith, or that he imagined that by heeding 
his exhortation the church would reduce its standard of faith 
to that of the weak brother whom it received. 

It is doubtless true that the feeble church in Kentucky, 
which was represented by a brother who had heroically de- 
fended the rights of the slave in the midst of persecution and 
of peril, had nothing in its creed above the level of Armini- 
anism, but it is preposterous to hold that by the simple recog- 
nition of him as a Christian worker, and allowing him to unite 
with the body, the Council, as " at one fell swoop," reduced 
three thousand Congregational churches to the position of 
Independent Methodists ; and yet there are churches being 
organized at the West on this low standard, on the ground that 
that Council fixed the denominational basis at that level ! It is 
time that this matter were better understood. As a denomi- 
nation, we believe in a God, the security of whose government 
is not a merely incidental result of His foreknowledge, — a God 
whose purposes are as far-reaching as the events in His realm. 

From all the doctrinal contests through which we have passed 
we have come out with a liberalized faith, but with the faith 
of the fathers still, the faith once delivered to the saints. It 
is not the minimum of truth which is essential to salvatior, but 
that glorious system of truths, which, in its consistency and 
coherence, is as resplendent as the great white throne. 

4 



26 

As we survey our position at the close of the century, we 
find some things which still need to be settled, or which, at 
least, need a still further process of induration. I refer to two 
points, the one having reference to doctrine and the other to 
polity. 

1. The doctrinal point involves two questions : — 

First. Shall we continue to exclude from our communion 
those who do not embrace the so-called evangelical doctrines ? 

Second. Shall we receive only as exceptional cases those 
who do not accept the characteristic creeds of our churches ? 

2. The point as to polity respects the rights and responsi- 
bilities of the churches as to persons to whom, under the laws 
of fellowship, they have given ministerial standing. 

If we do not continue to exclude from our communion those 
who do not embrace the so-called evangelical doctrines ; if we 
lower our standard and receive into our communion those who 
do not accept the scriptural doctrine of the endless punishment 
of the wicked, what will be the effect on the convictions of men 
as to the evil of sin and the sanctions of law ? If we view 
with favor a poetic and a mystical theory of the atonement, 
reducing it to a moral influence upon man, we leave the throne 
without support and the lost soul without a ransom. 

If we take from our creeds what is characteristic of us as a 
denomination, or receive into our churches as a rule, and not 
exceptionally, those who do not believe what is characteristic 
of us, what have we as a rallying-point ? Do you say " We 
will rally around the Cross " ? Are we so bigoted as not to 
think that others do the same ? Does any one say " Let us 
rally around our Congregationalism " ? I fear that, if asked, 
What is Congregationalism ? such men would leave us a very 
small point to rally around ! If our Congregational churches 
are to have vitality, permanency, and power, we must have a 
characteristic doctrinal basis as well as a polity. Other denom- 
inations have their rallying-points, distinct and conspicuous. 
If we have none, these denominations will draw to themselves 
those who can work together with harmony and enthusiasm, 
and leave for us only such materials as David had in the cave 
of Adullam. Does any one say " Let us take a broad plat- 
form and stand forth as the Church of Christ, and ultimately 



27 

the sects will all come to our standard " ? We can only say on 
that theory, judging from present developments, the millennium 
is not very near. 

As to the remaining point : If we give the right hand to a 
minister can we ever take it back ? It has been said that we 
can, by withdrawing our hand from the church which sustains 
him. That mode of operation was devised when there were 
no ministers except pastors of churches, and a man's ministe- 
rial standing depended upon his pastorate. Now more than half 
of our ministers are not pastors, and the majority of our ordi- 
nations are ordinations of evangelists ; now a minister's stand- 
ing does not depend upon his pastorate. Has Congregation- 
alism any power of adaptation to the new circumstances ? 
Must we continue to use our fathers' ox-team while all the 
rest of the world are whistling by ? Thank God, not so long 
as Andover is in the ascendant ! 

From " Zion's hill " we have looked back and looked around. 
In the retrospect we see abundant cause for thanksgiving. 
From our present position we can gather hope as to the 
future. As a denomination, we are possessed of the mission- 
ary spirit ; we are identified with liberty, morality, and progress ; 
we cherish intellectual culture, doctrinal truth, and practi- 
cal godliness ; and though our sky be not cloudless, we are 
cheered by the remembrance of the words of Robert Hall, 
" The vapors which gather round the rising sun and follow it in 
its course seldom fail at the close of it to form a magnificent 
theatre for its reception, and to invest with variegated tints 
and with a softened effulgence the luminary which they can- 
not hide." 



c a 

«c 



« « 
, <■ i 
. <« 

c € 

<• c 
4 C 
* c 
<<r 
«C 

a. 

- * K 

«C< ■ > 






cr «r 

S *- 






CI Cc CC 



«t '« « 






« < c «: 


( i 


gtc c «c 


C< 


»Tcc«c: 


c c 




< I 


irtcSE 


iC 


PCC(«B 


< c 


L«C(. j| 


' c 


-jS5Ci__^B 


<. ( 


. Cfrr^ 


CC 
< c 


g£<< 


*^C 


g^t 


CC 


t. c 


S^ c 


4Q^P 


c c 




i_.C 4fl 


CC 


«c*< 


«rC 


« < 




r «c 


«c<tar 


cc< 


*«Ccc« , 


<: < 


««c<<«ir 


< < 


«C< i «C 


< < 


*«iraL 


< c 


ISc'** 


<; c« 




<: c 


^ML^'OflL 


* <- 


«<-tsr? 


< c 


«:<•«•:_ 


C C* * 


«£.' ' « 


c c i 






« <c c <; 



l r 

( 

( ( ( 


c 

C 


* 


< 


( 

4 


C 


< 


a. 



: >c; ■ 
c 












< c«^ 



CC ' 



«• «: 



c ccc, 



c . <.< 

cc« 






c d 



( ( S 

< c ^ 

< <- 
c c c 

ccc < 



• « c c 
I c < <- 
C c C «. 

CC c «C 



c< c «c 
ccc< ' 



c<cA 

< c *. 

' cue 

r C.U C . 






c < - 



<:- S 



««r <c 

*h ,.cc 
4 ^ 









^3c ^ 

- «Cv 

«Sfc. 






ir <c 



Vi' 



ii 



€1 < 









H 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 






t *l 


B-. 


- c c 


*fc. 


r- C< ^ 


£«C ^ 


EL-C: <r_ 


c<«C- « 


S^< c 


< « 


pec 


< 


m 


^^^ 


EC— 


^=C*- 


sc::«^ 


^CZc c 


tc -c_ 


^C"c c 


c-c «c 






c =- * 


*.-<- «* 


C 


^CXc 


CCV< 


M 






c 


3fi5 


_C«_ ' 


« 


__^!l < 


c c i <; 


; * 




< <c '• <i ■ 


«r<-\ 



JHQT.4E C<T< 



- c<r <r. «*r ■ • 

. <%:> <g 
<C <£ 

. <C CC 
S <^ 

<c cc 

_ -- tc « 

« <£ 

^ C i 

MpC < 

;JSL<C 

^5; c 



3; « <ti 



■EL <X <t«C7- 

ice 



«r<c 

<<c< 

..CC c^; c<L<3C 
,,.cc c«r «c^t_ 

». c c c 

.cc: r- 



«;ec 

fCC< 



<: « « 






5 < <r_ 






ccc 

dec 



<fc£*C 
30C 



crcsc: 



id <r ad ~' «C3~ 



*S5& '<^ 



c, C 



<-« <r 



<C 



: «oc: ; 






C< 



c^C 

c« 

- « 



_C 






C4 



<or: «cr 



c c 

c c 

< — 



ex 

c c 

C Cit 

c> c< 



jir 






ccatiC 



c c 
c" c 



ccc 






